It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do 6 Out of 10 Americans Really Not Believe In Evolution?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg


Science is suppose to be materialistic. It doesn't work if you try to go about scientifically proving things which can't be measured, studied, quantified, etc.

That's the whole point. Without science, we'd still be burning witches at the steak for making the rains not come -- and who's to say burning people whom you perceive to be witches (or evil demons, the antichrist, satan, etc) won't make the rains come back? Without the scientific method, this is the kind of society we would be trapped in. Just a bunch of know-nothings who go about their lives practicing random superstitious rituals as a way to make things go there way.

Ya know, now that I think about it, we already have a society of people who do that.. Good grief. I'm surprised our species has lasted this long, and sort of question my belief in the practicality of a functioning democracy.



Good question Katag but Ill bet you you can't come up with ONE verifiable transitional form we are allegedly a common descendant of and if you have any transitional forms you'd like to put up as an example of a creature of a common ancestor i couldn't debunk.

Oh and please name the common ancestor. The problem is Science is the most corrupt area of academics their is bar none.

Fraud in medical research



File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML
... deranged minds” President of the National Academy of Sciences ... Banerjee found guilty of serious professional misconduct for falsifying data and ...
www.pitt.edu/~super7/14011-15001/14641.ppt - Similar
www.pitt.edu...



Science Panel Cites Research Fraud Problem; Improved Detection Of ...
The problem of scientific fraud has become so severe that traditional ... Article: News and Views: National Academy of Sciences; Nearly as White as a Posh ...
www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1002159.html - Cached - Similar
[PPT]http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116956


US research scientist found guilty of fraud.




Roger Dobson. Abergavenny ... by a committee at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he worked. ... one of them in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (1992;649:74-95). ...
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116956 - Similar
by R Dobson - 1999 - Cited by 3 - Related articles - All 4 versions

Journal of Dental Research
needed for companies found guilty of fraud. A second ... The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences ...
jdr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/69/6/1345.pdf - Similar
by HS Horowitz - 1990 - Cited by 2 - Related articles




Report of the Provost's Committee on Academic Fraud
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Mar 17, 1998 ... relevant wrongdoing that is common to both the National Science Foundation and the ... I, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992, p. 5. .... might even be found guilty of academic fraud at another institution. ...
adminet.uchicago.edu/adminpols/pols-provost/fraudrpt.pdf - Similar


Worse than pulp fiction: fraud in science



cologists were found guilty by a national commission of university scholars and officials of .... Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The ...
www.springerlink.com...

by D Ganten - 1997 - Cited by 1 - Related articles

Science Magazine
A researcher is found guilty of fraud. A black mark is splashed across certain published ..... Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (PNAS). ...
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/312/5770/38.pdf?ck=nck - Similar


The Frustrations of Scientific Misconduct



The AAMC and the National Academy of Sciences have published sample ... only a handful are found guilty of misconduct and only a small number of papers are ... Review of: Impure science: fraud, compromise, and political influence in ...
content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/328/22/1634 - Similar

Authors retract Science paper :The Scientist ..
Authors retract Science paper. Lead author found guilty of misconduct in embryonic ... and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, told The Scientist. ... Solter, Rossant, and their colleagues alerted UM of possible fraud and an ...
www.the-scientist.com...

Biology News: Jury delivers split verdict on plague researcher
A jury has found US microbiologist Thomas Butler guilty on 47 counts including theft, fraud and illegally mailing plague samples overseas. ... Representatives of the US National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine wrote to ...
www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=645 - Cached - Similar


Medical journals struggling to unearth research fraud - SciDev.Net




Rajput resigned after being found guilty by an Indian government committee of copying from a paper published ... National Academy of Agricultural Sciences ...
www.scidev.net/.../medical-journals-struggling-to-unearth-research-fr.html - Cached - Similar

Responsible Science, Volume II: Background Papers and Resource ...
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, ... of Chicago has been found guilty of academic fraud for work done at another institution, ...
www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2091&page... - Cached - Similar


US research scientist found guilty of fraud




US research scientist found guilty of fraud. Roger Dobson , Abergavenny ... by a committee at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he worked. ... of them in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (1992;649:74-95). ...
www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/319/7218/1156/a - Similar
by R Dobson - 1999 - Cited by 3 - Related articles - All 4 versions


Scientific Fraud and Misconduct in American Political Culture ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
1991 the OSI found Imanishi-Kari tentatively guilty of fraud .... were Philip Handler, the head of the National. Academy of Sciences, and Donald Fredrickson ...
eands.caltech.edu/articles/Kevles%20Feature.pdf - Similar


A more interesting example of the evolutionist's willingness to accept anything that comes along are the fossil remains given the very impressive scientific name Eoanthropus dawsoni.




These fossils, found in 1913, for more than 40 years were given the status within the evolutionary community as the second most important fossil find which established the evolutionary heritage of mankind. 7 Yet the 'Piltdown Man', as he was commonly called, was eventually discovered to be a deliberated hoax. And after more than four decades of misleading the public, evolutionists flippantly dismiss this hoax as merely "evidence of skullduggery in the ranks of academi," but do not mention the total failure of the 'evolutionary scientists' to notice the hoax. 8 As late as February 1953, writers such as Ruth Moore who had swallowed the evolutionist's line, were still assuring the general public that the Piltdown Man was "... the first modern man." 9 It's a shame that Ms.Moore did not wait 9 more months before publishing her book, because on November 21, 1953 the British scientific community finally exposed the Piltdown skull for what it really was; namely, one more piece of phony evolutionistic evidence. 10 www.unlimitedglory.org...


Here is a mountain of evidence that Scientist's are some of the most un-trustworthy people of any area of academia.




Emil Abderhalden's "defensive enzymes" (biochemistry, immunology)
* Elias Alsabti scandal (cancer immunology)
* J. Michael Bailey (sexology/psychology)
* David Baltimore and the Thereza Imanishi-Kari affair (immunology)
* Jacques Benveniste affair (immunology)
* Bruno Bettelheim (psychology)
* Aubrey Blumsohn Procter & Gamble Affair (Medicine)
* The Bogdanov Affair (physics)
* Stephen E. Breuning scandal (medicine)
* Cyril Burt affair (psychology)
* Ranjit Chandra controversy (nutrition)
* Inge Czaja (plant biology)
* John Darsee scandal (medicine)
* Charles Dawson's Piltdown man (anthropology)
* Jacques Deprat (the Deprat Affair)(geology)
* Shinichi Fujimura (archaeology)
* Robert Gallo (virology)
* Bruce Hall (immunology)
* Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (biotechnology)
* John Lott (sociology)
* Dănuţ Marcu (mathematics)
* William McBride (medicine)
* Sir Roy Meadow (medicine)
* Raghunath Anant Mashelkar
* Richard Meinertzhagen(ornithology)
* Gregor Mendel's impossibly perfect data (genetics)
* Josef Mengele's cruel experimentation on humans (medicine)
* Robert Millikan's data selection in his famous oil-drop experiment (physics)
* Victor Ninov's superheavy element (physics)
* Leo A. Paquette [4][5] (chemistry)
* Luk Van Parijs (immunology)
* Eric Poehlman (medicine)
* Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann's cold fusion
* Reiner Protsch (anthropology)
* George Ricaurte (medicine), see also Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy
* Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology)
* Gerald Schatten (biotechnology)
* Jan Hendrik Schön scandal (physics)
* Dalibor Sames (chemistry)
* Jon Sudbø, Andrew Jess Dannenberg (cancer research)
* William Summerlin scandal (cancer immunology)
* Kazunari Taira (molecular biology)
* Andrew Wakefield MMR-autism
* John B. Watson's Little Albert (child psychology)
* Ian Wilmut (biotechnology)
en.wikipedia.org...



I can provide thousands of cases and that is just those that have been caught. The most famous frauds AND the science most often committing fraud are evolutionist's. Now I find it rather odd that weed cites a video about how creationists are being deceptive without knowing they are not even allowed in science and of those 98% Kaytag speaks of that say they support evolution, just how long do you suppose their career would last if they didn't agree and were public about it?

What about the Peer review process? That seems to be broken as well


How to Fix Peer Review
by David Kaplan, Ph.D.

Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system. In September, the fifth in a series of international congresses concerned with how peer review can be improved will convene in Chicago. Yet so far, in spite of the teeth gnashing, nothing is being chewed.

Investigation of the peer-review system has failed to provide validation for its use
www.scienceboard.net...


What about the scientific method!


Scientific Method

Biology is one of the major sciences. Scientists have acquired biological knowledge through processes known as scientific methods. There is no one scientific method.

The steps of a scientific method make up an orderly way of gaining information about the biological world. The knowledge gained is sometimes useful in solving particular problems and is sometimes simply of interest without any practical application at the time. A scientific method requires a systematic search for information by observation and experimentation. The basic steps of any scientific method are stating a problem, collecting information, forming a hypothesis, experimenting to test the hypothesis, recording and analyzing data, and forming a conclusion



False Claims About the Scientific Method

Type of Claim: Nonexistence of the Scientific Method



The false claims below are the same or variations of claims of nonexistence:so-called method no such thing as an alleged method, no universal method, no single method, no one method

Explanation and Falsification

A mass of supporting evidence indicates that the scientific method does exist. There have been thousands of books and papers�written by distinguished and famous figures in the fields of education, science, research, psychology, and philosophy�claiming or citing the existence of the scientific method. Many called it by another name (e.g., method of discovery, method of inquiry, method of invention, method of research), but they were all referring to the same basic method or guide. A review of more than 1,000 books mentioning the subject produced more than 100 slightly different formulas for the steps or stages of the scientific method. It all adds up to a substantial body of knowledge supporting its existence. See Research Report 10 for some of the authors who acknowledge the existence of the scientific method or scientific method.


Here is a great article about the so called "scientific method"
A New Look at Scientific Method
plato.ucs.mun.ca...

Do you know they are still using haekels bogus embryo pics in current text books even though he was found guilty of fraud and even admitted it! That is just one of the many illustrations being used in todays science books that are a total mis-representation of the truth and if they are going to continue teaching bad science, is it any wonder why our kids have such dismal scores in science.

As for evolution being as strong a theory as gravity?

When was the last time you ever saw scientist throwing something up in the air and using a fraudulent mechanism to bring it back down again?

[edit on 29-6-2009 by DASFEX]




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I think this article sums it up between BOTH of the camps Christian and Atheist. Which can admit to these will be interesting to see.


Strategies and arguments employed in evolution/IDC debates

When Darwin, evolution, intelligent design and creation are discussed, strong emotions may be aroused and angry and offensive statements can be made by either side.

Debate about scientific matters should surely be conducted in a calm, measured and objective way, letting facts and logic speak for themselves. However, we are all human, with our comfort zones, red lines and emotional baggage, and we feel threatened if our world view is challenged. Remember Muslims rioting over cartoons of Mohammed-buildings were burned, people were killed and our right to free speech was further reduced. People get angry when they feel insecure or threatened.

Debating evolution versus intelligent design/creation (IDC) is not the same as debating who should manage the England football team, whether Steve Vai or Joe Satriani is the better guitarist, or what the right ingredients are for authentic Thai green curry or cassoulet de Castelnaudary. This is about origins, and destiny, and both sides NEED to be right.

To be blunt, if I as a Christian have molecules to man evolution by natural selection acting on random mutations PROVEN to me, my faith in the Bible and understanding of who I am is massively undermined. I have to downgrade my view of the Bible as revealed truth and revise or even abandon my faith.

If an atheist has evolution PROVED WRONG to him, he must then face the possibility of a God to whom he is answerable. His precious autonomy is gone and he may have to sumbit to a world view he hates. He may have to consider converting to Christianity (or for the sake of argument, Islam), probably the last thing in the world he wants. So he resists. He actively DOES NOT WANT there to be a God, so therefore NEEDS a non-theistic explanation of origins. Dawkins perceived this when he wrote 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist'.

The arguments become ugly and offensive. Evolutionists and atheists often accuse Darwin dissenters of being stupid, superstitious and ignorant, asserting that many of the world's ills are due to religion. Christian creationists assert that Darwinism is based on false and misrepresented evidence, has contributed to a deterioration of morals., and that Marxism and Nazism were both philosophically underpinned by Darwinism.

These charges are certain to cause offence, both ways. None of us is comfortable when presented with a new set of facts that may unravel the world view with which we are comfortable, so our defence mechanisms kick to maintain our internal status quo.

Perhaps the hardest thing in the world is admitting you are wrong. True science and true Christianity both assert that it is right, and in our own best interest, to be always open to the possibility of discovering that you have been mistaken, so there should not be a problem for either side in accepting 'new' truth even if it means we need a new world view. Nevertheless, each side thinks the other is deeply snd dangerously wrong.


You can read the article in its entirety here
www.questiondarwin.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
The latest missing link Ooops! NOT


Ida: Separating the Science from the Media Campaign
by Brian Thomas, M.S., and Frank Sherwin, M.A.*


Ida is the nickname of the stunningly well-preserved fossil that is currently being hailed as "our connection with the rest of all the mammals."1 A massive publicity campaign, including books, videos, a website, and public unveilings, coincided with the publication of a scientific study conducted on the fossil.2 But published statements from many scientists, both evolutionist and creationist alike, indicate that Ida's accolades as the long-sought-after "missing link" are thoroughly undeserved.

www.icr.org...


Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

The examples they have of whale evolution and the horse series have been demolished years ago as any kind of reputable proof for evolution, however the Berkeley site still uses these hackneyed old examples as so called evidence.

You can exalt Darwin for his Natural Selection but like the parts he "borrowed" from Lamark, he also stole Natural selection from a creationist. YEAH True


The following is from The Darwin Papers by James M Foard . He writes about Edward Blyth, who wrote up Natural Selection in a major science publication of the day, 23 years before Darwin published 'Origin of Species'. This scholarly study by Mr Foard, which is corroborated elewhere, shows clearly that Charles Darwin 'borrowed' (to put it kindly) the idea of Natural Selection from Blyth. This debt was never acknowledged by Darwin. Blyth died in poverty, unrecognised by men. Click on the following link for further consideration of the extent of Darwin's 'borrowing' of other people's ideas about natural selection.

It is noteworthy that Blyth was a Christian creationist, and argued that Natural Selection was a mechanism put in place by a beneficient Creator in order to allow animals to adapt to changing and adverse environments. This fits with the creationist view, dependent on reproducible science, that Natural Selection with limited variation within created kinds does exist. No controversy there as it can be directly observed and is no challenge to the Bible, and explains limited changes within kinds

www.questiondarwin.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
If an atheist has evolution PROVED WRONG to him, he must then face the possibility of a God to whom he is answerable.

no he doesnt. he just doesnt have evolution as an answer. your article seems quite loaded.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
What about an alternative to the Evolutionism vs. Creationism debate? What if aliens genetically manipulated existing primates to create a superprimate, um, a human?

Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA believed in Panspermia, so that would make him one of the 6 out of 10 Americans who don't believe in Evolutionism.

I guess he couldn't accept that DNA happened by chance:




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
If an atheist has evolution PROVED WRONG to him, he must then face the possibility of a God to whom he is answerable.

no he doesnt. he just doesnt have evolution as an answer. your article seems quite loaded.


No he doesn't but that is why it says "possibility" and to say he "just doesn't have evolution as an answer is kind of funny when that is exactly what this article is saying, proving his point, because he doesn't have evolution as an answer NOW.

yet they still believe it and defend it going as far as calling it a fact regardless of the true facts.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tungus
What about an alternative to the Evolutionism vs. Creationism debate? What if aliens genetically manipulated existing primates to create a superprimate, um, a human?

Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA believed in Panspermia, so that would make him one of the 6 out of 10 Americans who don't believe in Evolutionism.

I guess he couldn't accept that DNA happened by chance:



Yes I agree it is a plausible alternative however this too assumes too much and fails the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent. Interesting video, thanks for this

[edit on 30-6-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
I'm 50/50 on the topic. I don't believe evolution the way it is presented, and I don't believe in a literal 7 earth day creation either.

I think evolution does happen, and survival of the fittest as well. But I am also pretty sure there is a consciousness behind it and that it's not just "random mutations" or a "random universe" that "randomly formed" for not apparent reason. Random is impossible in action and reaction.


I also agree with the above quote. I believe half of each. IMO the time lines done make much sense for evolution. And the 7 days is far too quick



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Evolution in respect to Humans coming from sludge is so absurd that it is laughable. It makes no sense and there is no proof.

The only actual evidence for evolution is changes within a species. There is NO proof that one species evolved into another species which defeats the whole humans coming from a primordial ooze theory.

Hell, it's more plausable that humans came from ancient astronauts than from evolution.


[edit on 6/30/2009 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I have no idea where they get stats like that...believers in creationism are in a distinct minority in my area. Perhaps the poll-takers are selectively questioning people? Like asking the folks at evangelical churches?

I'm pretty sure that in my immediate area about 85-95% of the population accept evolution as fact, at least until something better comes along.

Please don't judge all US citizens based on cockamamie polls with agendas.

We're smarter, and better, than that.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
I have no idea where they get stats like that...believers in creationism are in a distinct minority in my area. Perhaps the poll-takers are selectively questioning people? Like asking the folks at evangelical churches?

I'm pretty sure that in my immediate area about 85-95% of the population accept evolution as fact, at least until something better comes along.




Please don't judge all US citizens based on cockamamie polls with agendas.

We're smarter, and better, than that.



Yeah riiight, Mr., "I have no idea where they get stats like that...believers in creationism are in a distinct minority in my area."

Lets see the smarter better poll YOU took

[edit on 30-6-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
No one I know believes in evolution, they do however believe in adaptation. Species will evolve to a certain point to adapt to their environment, but they will never cross species. Even my non-religions friends feel this way. So I would say that the survey is fairly spot on, maybe even conservative.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
I have no idea where they get stats like that...believers in creationism are in a distinct minority in my area. Perhaps the poll-takers are selectively questioning people? Like asking the folks at evangelical churches?

I'm pretty sure that in my immediate area about 85-95% of the population accept evolution as fact, at least until something better comes along.

Please don't judge all US citizens based on cockamamie polls with agendas.

We're smarter, and better, than that.


My friend, maybe you should not have put your 2c in. The stats is for "Americans", i.e USA citizens, NOT just for your area.

I also find the OP hard to believe. As another poster put it very simply, the vast majority of Americans are CHRISTIANS. Evolution is seen by most as anti-Christian. Therefore most Americans will not believe in evolution. As simple as that



Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
If an atheist has evolution PROVED WRONG to him, he must then face the possibility of a God to whom he is answerable.

no he doesnt. he just doesnt have evolution as an answer. your article seems quite loaded.


AFAIK, there are only 2 "theories" thrown into this hat; Evolution and Creationism. If Evolution is proved wrong what other options to you have? Creationism. I can however guarantee you that if Evolution is ever accepted by evolutions to be proved wrong (this point is very important, as Evolution IS proven wrong: missing links everywhere) they will have big conferences to come up with something else anti-creationist.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
No one I know believes in evolution, they do however believe in adaptation. Species will evolve to a certain point to adapt to their environment, but they will never cross species. Even my non-religions friends feel this way. So I would say that the survey is fairly spot on, maybe even conservative.


Yes you are correct in that adaptation and variation are observable and while evolutionists continue to argue creationism has no proof, to many many people the proof is all around them. Creation science is just as much a science as evolution if they are going to apply the same rules and scientific method to it. You don't have to prove a creator to prove creation anymore than we would have to prove Michael Angelo to Prove The statue of david was created by someone. Creation Science may have religious implications but it doesn't have religious premises in-spite of what evolutionist may insist, I would insist what says it HAS to?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DASFEX
 


I think that much of the dispute is actually by those who wish to discredit Christianity for various reasons. What they do not realize is that its not only Christianity who teaches creation. For example, I have spent time around the Native Americans, and they believe in creation, not evolution, though they will admit to adaptation. Much of their religion is based on beliefs of certain animal spirits that have taught them lessons, which they believe have been passed down for up to 10K years. So saying that a deer or turtle was something else 10K years ago goes against their religious beliefs.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by DASFEX
 


I think that much of the dispute is actually by those who wish to discredit Christianity for various reasons. What they do not realize is that its not only Christianity who teaches creation. For example, I have spent time around the Native Americans, and they believe in creation, not evolution, though they will admit to adaptation. Much of their religion is based on beliefs of certain animal spirits that have taught them lessons, which they believe have been passed down for up to 10K years. So saying that a deer or turtle was something else 10K years ago goes against their religious beliefs.


Yeah I have read the terra papers and other indian versions of creation and going against their religion may be as strong an argument as saying it goes against common sense but more than that, it goes against science. I live near the navajo reservation and many of them won't share their spiritual views. May I enquire the tribe and any other details you may know off the cuff?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DASFEX
 


Sure, but I'll send it in a U2U.
I will say this here the thread though: They do believe that there is no way their ancestors could have had much of the knowledge that they had other then from an outside source. They believe that the creator sent certain animal spirits to their people to teach them lessons. Those lessons have been handed down from generation to generation.

One thing that struck me about this, and goes into other religions, which folks like to pick on about being handed down through word of mouth, is the accuracy that is ensured when doing things this way. People like to point out stuff like playing telephone, and how those kinds of messages get twisted around over time, but a medicine man (for lack of the correct term which gives away what tribe I am talking about) trains for up to 18 years to learn those stories verbatim. He will train his successor and ensure that he learns them verbatim as well. That kind of puts a dent in the atheist view of the inherent inaccuracy of religions which were handed down word of mouth for generations.

[edit on 6/30/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


I don't believe in evolution.. prove your "well established theory" to me in your next post.... pleeeeez



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by danielsil18
Example:

If one day everyone decides to stay awake at night and sleep at day then Humans will adapt and have eyes like Owls.


I guess not. But these days they'd be called Call Center Agents...



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



No one I know believes in evolution, they do however believe in adaptation. Species will evolve to a certain point to adapt to their environment, but they will never cross species.


Ah, you're so close!

Adaptation is the sub-set within the overall evolutionary bubble.

Mutations, whether triggered by environmental pressures, or by DNA copying errors that prove beneficial, those events trigger speciation.

Nature is not perfect, and that imperfection is what leads to the immense variety. Organisms will find a niche, sometimes, and remain stable. Mutations that are not conducive to creating further viable offspring will not be passed on to succeeding generations.

I think too many people keep looking at this through Human goggles. Thet're looking through the wrong end of the microscope.

Most Humans just can't grasp the immensity of time spans, and thousands of generations of an organism....they're used to MTV and 30-second commercial ads.
------------------
Herer, this explains it better. Less than ten minutes, and if you just use the logical portions of your brain, you'll see the beauty of it. AND the music is nice! Warning, however...you must be able to read and comprehend, so take your goggles off NOW!




[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join